Congress grants federal courts concurrent and limited jurisdiction rather than full constitutional reach

Evidence

Congress has not required that all cases arising under the federal judicial power be heard in federal court. Instead, it has allowed state courts to decide some of these cases by granting concurrent, rather than exclusive, jurisdiction to federal courts. This means that, with a few exceptions such as criminal cases based on federal statutes, cases that could be filed in federal court can be initiated in state courts as well. Lawyers thus can choose to file a case in the court in which they believe they have the best chance of winning or where they expect the highest awards should they prevail. Throughout the nation’s history, Congress has also limited the jurisdiction of federal courts. One example is federal jurisdiction over diversity of citizenship cases. Although the Constitution permits federal courts to be assigned all cases involving a suit by a citizen of one state against the citizen of another state, Congress has restricted federal courts to those cases in which a sizable amount of money is involved. Currently federal courts can hear diversity cases only when at least $75,000 is at stake. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 245

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines concurrent vs. exclusive jurisdiction and the $75,000 diversity amount-in-controversy requirement.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how does the strategic forum-shopping the passage describes shape which disputes reach federal courts and precedent?
• XREF: connects to: Congress creates all federal courts below the Supreme Court under Article III — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 223; The Constitution created only the Supreme Court and left lower courts to Congress — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 231; Congress defines federal court jurisdiction within constitutional limits — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 240 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• The Constitution left the federal courts’ structure to Congress by design #expands (0.88) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 277
• Congress deliberately delegated antitrust law creation to the courts via broad statutory language #exemplifies (0.82) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 273
• Congress can confer exclusive jurisdiction on a specific federal court for disaster claims #exemplifies (0.80) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1935
• Congress expands federal jurisdiction in response to political and caseload pressures #expands (0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 259
• Courts cannot preserve congressional power that Congress fails to use #qualifies (0.74) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2870
• Subject matter jurisdiction is a discrete threshold matter in federal courts #qualifies (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1174